Requirement. How long would it take you to draw this up so we can continue this . Were pretty fast. Its not a high priority, but what i would hope or ask is maybe this permit can be allowed to continue with the condition that we no. Were probably going to have you council membme not. I would not be support that. Im supporting a i most likely will be supporting the next meeting. How much time do you need, mr. Sanchez . A day . Oh, then, im ready next week. Ill have it in two days. What does our load look like . Well, can you get me the plans tomorrow . Yeah, we have a hearing on august 7, but we would i mean, would you like the plans in time for the hearing . Scott sanchez Planning Department. Really, we need a day or two to review the plans, and if theyre submitted to planning or building at the same time, we can confirm that theyre compliant with the planning code, we can have the hearing next week. And if it doesnt happen in a timely manner, then it wont be heard. I make a motion to continue it to the next meeting. Okay. We very a motion from commissioner we have a motion from commissioner honda to get the plans in shape and heard at the next hearing. So on that motion [roll call] clerk okay. That motion carries 50, and well see you in one week. Okay. Lets move on to item number nine. Thank you very much for your patience, the people here for item number 9. [agenda item read]. I need to make my reuben and junius disclosure. I need to disclose that i am on a board that has hired reuben and junius. Their presence will not effect my position. Good evening. Good evening. This is a case about demolition. Demolition seems like a simple concept. A permit is submitted with architectural drawings. They show calculations of an anticipated amount of demolition. Staff reviews the plans, and the proposed demolition. If the amount falls within the allowed thresholds, the permits approved. But thats where the simplicity ends. This case, and i know this board has had. Supervisor mandelman has had many other cases and its more complicated. Once a project is under construction and the walls are opened, dry rot and decay can be found that was unexpected. That dry rot and decay can be repaired or replaced and that could add to the threshold to the demolition amounts that have been approved. That can be okay. It needs an inspection. That didnt happen here. We acknowledge that. If theres enough decay. It could be possible that the building is unsound. A soundness study could be performed, but that would allow in the entire project being allowed. An entire existing structure could be dismantled in order to repair the dry rot and decay as was the case here. The structure could be taken down and the boards placed aside, the dry rot and decay taken down. Thats what was done here, and you can see the photos here, clearly taken by parties trespassing on the property. Thats the reality of our demolition rules today. Project sponsor and the contractor in this case didnt do that. They tried to be transparent and show the demolition that they planned to do. On top of all of this, you have the planning and Building Department having different codes and not always being hoe cohesive cohesive being cohesive in presenting these regulations. Until these issues are resolved, people like my clients and their contractor are left trying to do the best they can to operate in accordance with code. We understand that staff may not be able to find that no violation occurred heefre, but this board is privy to more information than staff, and its charged as part of its mission to consider the totality of the circumstances, and i ask you to consider these facts. This project began in 2008, over ten years ago. At that time, the demolition rules were different. Its been in process over ten years for just a singlefamily home. It can be difficult for a project sponsor to keep track of changes in the rules over that time. This building as youve seen is largely constructed. The contractor had all of its required inspections and passed them. He thought he was operating in accordance with code. Mr. And mrs. Lee, the Property Owners are in their 70s, and their home is attended for their granddaughter whos 13. Shes here today. This is not a speculative Real Estate Venture that will be flipped for profit. The existing structure is old. Its 90 years old, 700 square feet. Its at the rear of the lot, completely out of character with the neighborhood. The new home matches existing neighborhood character in terms of design and massing. It fills a hole in the streetscape. Its modestly sized Family Housing addressing one of the policies behind demolition that we not replace more Affordable Housing with monster homes. And finally, the potential consequences to finding a violation here are severe. Given all of this, we ask the board consider all of the equities here and the fairness. Is that potential penalty to mr. And mrs. Lee proportionate to the alleged violation or is this a procedural violation where the contractor could have had the dry rot or decay inspection . We ask this board just to apply these facts to the existing rules. This board is charged with exercising equity and find that it do so and find that in this circumstance in the confusing world of demolition rules that no violation occurred. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. This is an appeal of a violation. Can i have the overhead, please . Is this a demolition . I think as you can see, theres very little of that building left. The permit holder has mentioned about the extensive permit process that they went through. They failed to be able to demonstrate that they have a permit for what you saw in that photo. In fact not just one but two permits show those walls of that rear building to remain, not disassembled or demolished or destroyed as shown here. They allege that its just a procedural mistake. They were actually given a chance to correct this. After these photos were taken, they were sought to correct the scope of work. They sought that permit in early november of 2018. A few of the walls were noted as drywall to be repaired. Now after the buildings been demolished, and now, when theyve been caught, it is every single wall was demolished, and now its a procedural issue. I think they very clearly violated the planning code. The permit holder, the appellant has stated that not plaing stated that planning code section 317 is being amended by supervisor peskin but its being amended by cases like this. Part of the building is a legal noncomplying structure. To build that needs a variance. They didnt address it in their brief or in any of their presentation tonight. They are saying that the board has, you know, the ability here or maybe some wider latitude than the Building Department does. I would defer to the City Attorney. They say that you have more information than was available to the department, and that was true because they didnt responsibility to the department. They appealed it to the board of appeals and then withdrew that appeal before the hearing. They did not respond to the department in regards to that suspension request. That suspension request is now final. Those permits are now suspended. They did arrange and accommodate staff for a site visit, but theres been no response to try to address these concerns. They want to have it here and they pray for relief from the board of appeals saying what youre seeing in the photos is not a demolition, but this is a demolition, and they havent provided any evidence here that supports that. If anything, through the course of this process, their plans are more widely exposed. It had to have been known at that time. How could the licensed professional that submitted those plans say that those walls were to remain when they were already removed . They noted very small instances of drywall repair. Well, what we really meant to say was every wall was subject to dry rot . They havent even responded at all to the issues raised at all about the rear yard requirement, so with that, i think that, you know, the report that we have kind of speaks for itself and im available for any questions that the board has. One other item that they, you know, claim that the person who took the photos and trespassed, i think that may be straying a bit far because on the photos, you can actually see very clearly that theyre on their side of the property. Theyre maybe just trying to besmirch the character of that person, but in any way, thats false. We ask that this board uphold this notice of violation and penalty, and im available for any questions. Thank you. Commissioner honda ive never seen you this animated in a while. Its getting late i guess. Commissioner honda i guess youre cranky. So i can actually see this home from my back window and drive by it every day, and so you know, to me, its my path home, and so ive seen the boarded walls for quite sometime, right, and im sure the neighbors would like some relief. What relief do they have at this point . The structures already built. I believe recently, a couple of structures through the Planning Commission was told to rebuild, and i believe the City Attorney negotiated a 1. 7 million settlement for several buildings, egregious, egregious. Looking over this material, i understand its no excuse for a contractor whether theyre from san leandro or theres rules to be followed here. If you look at whats reasonably transpired, theyve got 83,000 permit fee penalty. So basically, they got to knockdown and build whatever they wanted for 120,000. Those cases that youre speaking of, to my knowledge, they were not complete demolitions of property. They were serial violations, and we brought that case to the City Attorneys office, but in my recollection, they were not demolitions under 317. It was a case where it was a Historic Building on lombard street, and there was 400,000 on that property. It actually was rh1, and the r sfl so so whats the relief here . Its the process that they should have gone through from the beginning. Theyre asking for you to take away the Planning Commissions right and responsibility to hear this matter under section 317 of the planning code so that they the planning code would be the one to make the decision on that. Regarding the rear i canyar variance and the demolition of the walls. And theres no setup for the penalty so its just for my education, its not necessarily true that they may not have to take it down. They may receive the approvals that they need. That is an option, yes. So a couple of years ago, it all runs together. Two things are popping into my mind. I forget the final resolution. A couple of years ago, the one thats popping in bigger is there was a building on in the outer lake street area, i think, on the 8 or 9 avenue, and i remember a picture window in a historic it actually came from the Planning Commission last week. Yeah. And it was bad. I mean, it was it was similar to this. They tore that building apart well beyond the scope of anything any revision. Can you refresh my memory. That was just last week. What was the address . It was fifth street remember, it was the dual lost that was combined, and they over excavated. Oh, that was lake street that was the 25 not that far out. 2517 avenue. But they legally divided the lot. Yet. Yes. It wasnt a subdivision because the lots had never been legally merged, but yeah, that was a decision by the department of public works, that was not a demolition like this. In other cases that are more like this would be hopkins, which was the neutro house, state street, which wasnt demolished as much as this one state street has it doesnt appear that there was a ton of a serial permitting. And state street, the expression, they built over their neighbors property line. No. On this one, they submitted fraudulent plans when they tried to correct it. I think theres a case to be made that this is an egregious case, and i think the Planning Commission should have the ability to decide this matter. So we dont the reason i started this and thank you very much. Its great that darryls chiming in with his memory, as well. I think it reminds me of the phrase putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. So it would be your intent to put Humpty Dumpty back together again because Humpty Dumpty should never have been taken apart again. They need to go through the process. So upholding the notice of violation. Ideally, we wouldnt have even gotten this far. To me, in my mind, given the the clear violation here, theres no excuse for us having gotten this far . They should have submitted the conditional use authorization when we first brought this to their attention that we knew, and then, we could be working down toward that path. Now theyre approaching penalties of 250 a day because they havent tried to seek compliance. If they can seek their c. U. And diligently pursue the application, then, we can we can find them to be coming into compliance and we can look at how we deal with the penalty situation, but right now, they need to get the application in, go through the process, go to the Planning Commission. And what is you know, i agree with you on every point that you make. I respectfully wonder where mr. Tunney got his point of view from after reviewing these case. But when we have these things when theres clear abuse in just every every stop, and somebody tries to bully their way through that stop and start rebuilding a house the way they want to do it in the first place, and planning addition be damned, where is that point . Where do you get to that point where abusers like that are held accountable . Where is the point that we say hey, guess what . Were going to roll back and let you start all over again and do exactly what was approved . The board, you guys, hold them accountable. Finding them to be in violation, very clearly so they appealed that. They think were wrong. Its up to the board to find the notice of violation. So if we uphold a notice this is where im trying to get clarification. If we uphold notice of violation, then it kicks the ball back into your court. We cant if we find uphold the notice of violation, thats where we stop. Thats then, theyre actually required to do something. You take action, upholding the notice of violation, then they have to respond to that and bring the property into compliance. You are taking an action to hold them accountable, and then, they can submit the c. U. And go through the process. If were not getting compliance at that point, then, we can bring in the City Attorneys office. At this step, if we dont get compliance, our next step is the City Attorneys office. And if you dont agree to the c. U. As they file it, is that where Humpty Dumpty if they get a decision thats adverse to them, they have the ability to appeal the decision to you, they have the ability to appeal the c. Auchlt auchlt the c. U. To the board of supervisors, and dp thif they like that, they can appeal that decision, as well. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk thank you. Mr. Duffy . Commissioners, joe duffy, d. B. I. Im not going to say much. The d. B. I. , were aware of this and did notice an issue of violation concerning the demolition. The conditions were not depicted correctly on the revision permit. Then planning suspended everything. And weve been to the site, and these are a nightmare for everyone concerned. In the last nine months or so when a permit or such is issued, d. B. I. Will call the someone involved in the team, either the architect, the contractor, or the owner, let them know that youve got a project, do not exceed the scope of demolition. If you do, its going to have serious consequences. Youre going to end up going back to the Planning Department, getting another permit in processes such as this. If you do come across dry rot, if you come across any inferior framing, you stop, you contact d. B. I. , and youve got something in hand with this condition. I still believe that still needs to go through, according to the Planning Department, you still may need your c. U. But at least youve done it youve contacted the agency. What that does for you is if they end up contacting you, weve got no mercy for you. In the past, some of these projects, it says when i was looking at the plan on this one, it clearly says walls to remain. Sometimes there is a discrepancy with what the engineer approved on the structural drawings. The engineer comes in, does some structural evaluations and realizes hes got to put in a shear wall. That then eliminates that wall on the sfrukt ratructural draw. Now, the contractor is confused. Im not sure if thats what happened, but they clearly exceeded the scope of the demolition on the drawings. I went out there because reading the Planning Departments brief, the building inspector certainly missed stuff out here. If you see some of the photographs in the Planning Departments brief show forms concrete forms in there prior to pouring the foundation at the rear. That wall should have still been there. It wasnt there. Thats a flag for us, and we probably missed that. We may have been involved in this process a little bit earlier. Were just looking into that, but they are a problem, and were hoping that as we move forward in the years to come, this is going to cleanup. Weve heard of at the lem legislation. It actually may come to the day where dismantling these walls, getting a proper wall with waterproofing in there is something that may be allowed, but in this case, its not yet. Commissioner swig, i do agree with you, the biggest thing for my opinion is these projects, they just sit for years. Thats a sad thing for everybody concerned, but it is what it is. He is in violation, and they cant defend that. Do you remember the one on juniper serra. They built that without permits, and i drove by that, and its a mausoleum. We have one in my neighborhood. Its been there since 04, 15 years ago. Theyre still working on that one. Theyre still working on that . Yeah. Im available for any questions if anyone has any. If not, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, well move on to rebuttal, the permit holder. Well hear from the permit holder. Good evening, welcome. Commissioners, my names andrew lee. Actually, im not the permit holder. Im here to represent my family. Actually, in fact, the real owner of this property is not my parents because this was actually meant for my daughter, jordan, okay . Shes a 13yearold girl, and shes a great girl. She goes to Public School right here in san francisco, lived her all her life, right . And i wanted to give you a little background why this property is for her. The reason why this property is for her is because at a very young age, her mother left her, okay . So my parents are in their 70s. My mom couldnt be here today because she is in excruciating pain because of her back. My father, hes here today, but you know, as it as you know, with all due respect to the Planning Commission and all the people that make these rules, i could tell you right now, its not very easy to understand what theyre talking about. You almost need a ph. D. To understand all these rules that we have to go through. This project has been in the process for a long, long time, and you know and to see this kind of outcome to happen is just it just could be tremendous. Just the process alone after this is going to be years and years to come. You know, when we hear about this fraud thing and all this kind of stuff, you know, were just people just trying to get something do something for my kid, for my family, and i just i just dont know what else to say other than the fact that i this is all she has. This is not about were not criminals here or anything like that. So when you come to make a decision that you know what the consequence is going to be, the consequence is going to be dire for my family. I just want to let you know that. Thank you. Mr. Lee . Yes. Are you a developer . Is this what you do for a living . No. Have you done this in the past . I tell you what i do. I work for the i work for the state, and the state, as you know, doesnt pay anywhere near how well they pay here at the city and county of san francisco. Weve been fighting for, you know, equal pay, which may only net an extra 250 a month. Im on a fixed income. Theres no way i could have gifted anything like this to my daughter. No way. Youve heard im sympathetic. Like i said, i drive by the property sometimes three times a day. Its literally three blocks from my home. I dont like to see the blight in the neighborhood as well. At the same time, its hard to dispute what the department has said. I mean, in can i no, let me finish. Okay. Granted, our exd. A. Was very animated here. But they said that theyve reached out to you guys many times, and to have no response and so like i said, i understand how difficult the process is here today. No one is here to villainize here or crucify you here today. If you could give us a little more insight, because again, i am very sympathetic. Well, let me say this. In october, you know, when these pictures was taken, why wasnt anything said to us back in those days, right . Before all this was built up . Why . If you look at it, its only about a month away from being completed. So, i mean, really, if you think about it, you know who are as really i think everybody messed up a little bit in this situation. If we were notified back in those days, we could have we could have found a way to fix the situation, but it wasnt, and it was and it was held on, and we didnt get a notice until just when was that notice sent in . I think it was, like, march, february. And then, the place is already up hundreds of thousands of dollars put in there already, and all that taken away. And ive got to ask, is this for resale . No, absolutely not. This is for my daughter so she has something over her head. You know, to prove that, if you guys want to tell her she cant sell it or whatever, 20 years or whatever, thats fine. But the thing is is that its for her, its for my girl. No, i understand. Its for my daughter. Were going to try. I dont know if theres a way to correct this, and you pretty much had me in tears, but so i just wanted to ask those questions. Can i ask, mr. Lee, also, whats your communication been like with your contractor because to your point, it is really hard for lay people to navigate our system, and often our planning and Building Department rely on working with professionals who are representing you. So what has been the contact that youve had with them and the contact and the Communications Just as you and im sorry, the timing issue from the brief that the Planning Department filed, there were violations going back to october, so these violations were submitted, and it seems like yourselves or your professionals who were representing you was not correcting the situations in ways that were satisfying the planning code. Well, let me just say this, right . This is actually my parents doing up until this point. I didnt get involved in this thing until like february, okay . And then, when february you know, everythings already hit the fan already, and so its just unfortunately, you know, its what it is now. I do think there is a language barrier here. My parents are immigrants from china and come with pennies in their pockets, and theyve worked very hard to be able to provide these this these kind of things for my family and especially to my girl. So you know you know, i dont know exactly what happened there at that point, but all i know is that if you look at the dates, the thing is october of last year. You know, why is it brought up to now . And now, you know, we laugh and joke about Humpty Dumpty. Well, if this falls and breaks, its going to break my family. Its going to break my girl. I dont want that to happen. I dont want that to happen. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner sanchez . Thats wrong. Thank you. Scott sanchez, Planning Department. So i appreciate the comments of the Property Owners family, but you know, again, this very clearly is a violation. They were informed of this in october, which is when they submitted their permit to correct this violation. They did not accurately represent the condition of the building as it existed at that time on those plans. Thats why i called that fraud because it simply does not represent the condition. Theyre showing those walls to remain. It is done in a manner such that it just exactly meets the planning code requirements, so it doesnt require any greater scrutiny. I dont know if that was an accident or not, but the way its drawn is what you can get away with and not be a demolition. Its not accurate, and d. B. I. Has confirmed that the plans that they submitted are not accurate. When we were not made aware of those photos until march of this year, and that is when we did the suspension, the appellant had the and tbility come before you earlier than today and they did not do that. They could have filed for their conditional use authorization months ago. They did not do that. We want this to be resolved as much as they do. As i understand it, one of the Property Owners is a real estate agent, that owns licensed Real Estate Properties in the city. If you kind of google that, you will find that. Not to say that holds them to any higher standard of the law, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I understand that they want the board to take action and remedy this in their favor tonight, but i dont understand how that can be done. Im available for any questions. In response i mean, this is a very emotional situation. Its its a its a tough one. But im going to use mr. Tunneys word of equity which i think was misused today. The equity is playing according everybody has to play according to the rules. Everybody has to Pay Attention to the same laws. Thats equity, mr. Tunney, by the way. And so the tough position that this places in the hands of this board and im very sorry for the permit holders position. We all are, but the law is the law. And it seems what im hearing is that in october in october they didnt wait until february, didnt wait until march, didnt wait to a later point, in october, there was clarity with regard to a breach of the law. Right . Yes. And and that breach was noticed, and the property owner, whether it was his father, whether it was a contractor that misbehaved, but thats thats a thats not a within our control. That they choose not to Pay Attention, not to heed the law. And as it moved on, they continued not to heed the law. And the equity, which is there, the equity which is the law in balance with the rights of of the to protect the rights of the citizens, that law was breached, and that law was abused. And this is why its very hard for us to hear this great sadness, but at the same time, i believe we have to uphold the law, and im not seeing anything im not seeing any wiggle room. I agree completely. I mean, they pursued construction of this building based upon plans that were fraudulent, that didnt accurately represent the demolition. They chose to continue construction when it was brought to our attention through those photos in march we compare it had to the plans that should compared it to the plans that had been submitted, and they didnt match. Thats many months now. We just want it to be resolved as quickly as the neighbors do. Theres a process for that that they have not yet pursues. Theyre delaying this, putting this all on the board of peals, but the process for them is to go do the c. U. , do the variance. Let me ask them one more follow up question because i want the permit holder to hear this just to the permit holder doesnt feel that hes being getting special special attention in a negative fashion. If you came across anybody holding a permit, and the same thing happened, you advised them appropriately, and they continued to abuse the pri privilege under the law, you came back and said, you didnt build under the law, what would happen . They would be held to call under the process . I think there is an issue that i would raise, though, which is october 17, october 17, a complaint is filed that there was more work done. And yet, somehow, you dont get the photos until march of the following year. And in the interim, im assuming, mr. Duffy, theres been sign offs on various parts of this construction . Theres nobody from d. B. I. Saying things are okay . Where is the citys role in that city is following the plans and it gets to a building thats almost complete, and now were saying you didnt get what you needed. So where is our culpability as a city government. The notice of violation, that issue was raised in last october of 2018. On november 1, 2018, they submitted their permit to correct it and to they say properly document the demolition. That was approved and issued on february 15, so i think during this time, they were continuing construction while they were subject to that notice of violation but i cant speak anymore to that. I would defer to the department of building inspection. Mr. Duffy, im not clear where they are in their inspection history if theyre just doing construction out there if its all an n. O. V. Yeah, there was a notice of violation issued. It wasnt for all of the work. We didnt stop all of the work. We told them to stop work at the areas that we cited them for. This was a big project. You know, at that time, they were allowed to continue with certain aspects, but it was very clear that they were not supposed to work on any of the areas. I can read the whole notice out if you wish. Now, there was in the brief about inspections, they scheduled an inspection for shear walls. I think we should have stopped all the work, but if you look at the project, there was nothing at the front of the property except for the small garage. They were supposed to keep one wall and then built right up to the rear structure that was supposed to remain, and that was supposed to remain as a single story, and then, in the front part, youve got three stories. Thats pretty much a new building except for one wall. That wall that was at the front building, i would call it its almost two structures. In fact, its one, but at that front part, the only part that was in violation from us was the front sidewall of the garage. So if youve got that building and youre not in violation of the rest of it, youve got some work to do. Were like we want to keep the project moving, as well, but i do think that they with that, theyve probably gone beyond it, obviously. Now, in the brief, it says we d did rough frame inspections, we did look at window flashings, but thats only in the areas that were allowed to be. Lastly, we dont want to be involved unless we have to be. It was stop work in areas that were listed above, but you might have no problem in another part of the building, and that was it. Obtain a revision of the permit to document the work that was done. And if the inspectors are going out, and theres work happening in other areas that are not allowed to be noted, what would happen . Oh, in this case, we did note that, and then, work was suspended. Which was in the springtime of this year. I was in contact with the architect late last year on this project. He was speaking to us, he was coming down to d. B. I. , so you knee what he knew what he had to do. Just so you know, the walls in question, you can see old framing, but they were destressed and rebuilt. I have a couple questions for mr. Sanchez. So theres something im not understanding about the consequences of this notice of violation. If they seek approval for what theyve already done and the approvals denied what, at that point, is the recourse . Yeah, what is the Planning Commission then require them to do. So the walls are in the same place that they were before. When the commission has been confronted with these types of front, the commission has approved a project for them. So it usually wouldnt just deny, it would approve a project and if they refuse to comply, then we would involve the City Attorneys office. So the particular project had walls that were to remove. They demolished those walls, and they replaced them. So in order to come into compliance with the project that was approved, they wouldnt have to do anything. So in order to come into compliance with the project as cause its in order to come into compliance, they would need to get approval for the work that has already been done, so that was the removal of those walls. That requires the authorization of the Planning Commission. At that time, the Planning Commission has the entire project before them and can make changes to the project, but the only way to remedy this is theyre seeking retroactive approval of the projects that they built project that they wanted to built. I guess the commissions not going to require them to tear down the building. They might have some changes they want them to make, and it might require them to incur cost. The Planning Commission has so in some cases said if you exceeded the scope, were not going to give you what you applied for. Often, they go back and say we want additional density, as well. They may ask for changes to the envelope of the building and it really depends on the permit holder, i mean, if this is something that people are flipping homes and doing this consistently, the outcome at the Planning Commission is a little bit, right . Not in my experience. I think the commission has been pretty consistent with having people go back to what was there before without regard to the applicant. I mean, there have been people who have made these mistakes who have been small Property Owners, and the commission has and my understanding is one of the reasons why we leave one standing load bearing wall is so we dont circumvent the rent and tenant rights, is that correct . Because otherwise, it would be a new building and it would circumvent the tenant rights. So the city theyve kept that one load bearing wall so that the construction time is original. Yeah, so it was kind of an amended c. F. C. So at this point, theyre still keeping the rent control, and we see this pretty regularly throughout the city any way. Probably maybe assessment issues, as well, with the tax collector, is my guess. And my last question was how do you know that the date thats on those photos are the dates that these were taken . That was provided by the neighbor that that provided those materials. Thats our assumption. The appellant hasnt challenged that as those being the date. Thats our understanding of what the neighbor had submitted as part of their complaint. And although i wouldnt want you to speculate and compromise anything, just for the information of the permit holder, so if you look in your crystal ball, and this was kicked back to planning, one thing for sure is that its going to stop the project right now, right . Number two, in the process of getting the going into compliance and if they deny a variance, which would be the worst case scenario, right . What would happen to the structure as it sits today . If the cause theres two aspects to it. One, the conditional use authorization, the Planning Commission hearing the project as a whole, and then, two, the discreet variance thats currently in the required rear yard. If that were denied, they would appeal that to the board of appeals, and if the denial was upheld, they would be required to remove the last 5 feet of the building. The whole ground floor extension, that is being shown as an exercise room, so theres probably room to reduce the size of that. I know its no comfort to the permit holder, but we are not talking about just so we dont scare the heck out of them and throw them into a deeper depression than he probably is in already, the realistically, what would happen is, one, this project isnt going anywhere right now for a while, right . Well, they need to file their c. U. But let me so upon filing so right now, its not going anywhere. Its completely legal to continue building this house, right . No, all permitted have been suspended. That was in smarch, and they went through their appeal. So the process is stopped. Right. Then, if we decide to kick it back, a c. U. Is filed, and it goes back to planning, and how much how much time do you would you anticipate that would happen . I mean, if the you know, the permit holder can respond in an expeditious fashion which would be their interest to do so, c. U. Can be six to eight months, best case scenario. So were talking about a building thats going to stay the same from now until next june, approximately. And at that point, would the variance issue be handled in the same hearing at the Planning Department . Yes. And if they denied the variance, then, it would be obvious that most likely the permit holder would file an appeal, and and lets say we denied the variance, as well, on appeal. Just not speculating, im looking to inform
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.